Is there a video with different dialects? Please post it here. I tried wikipedia but, the sound samples are too short to even judge. However, Classical Syriac > Iraqi koine > Chaldean > Tyari > and I disliked the Urmian one because it sort of has Farsi sound to it more than a seimitic one.

Is there a video with different dialects? Please post it here. I tried wikipedia but, the sound samples are too short to even judge. However, Classical Syriac > Iraqi koine > Chaldean > Tyari > and I disliked the Urmian one because it sort of has Farsi sound to it more than a seimitic one.

To be fair, Urmian has a more authentic Assyrian sound to it, considering that many Assyrians would typically have a dialect similar to Urmian ---- Iraqi Koine, Jelu and Nochiya dialects are a lot closer to Urmian. Tyari is like a "lovechild" of Urmian and Chaldean (as it uses the Th sounds). You can say that Chaldean is a concoction of Western Assyrian (Turoyo) and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, although it still sounds more Eastern. As in, it will be more intelligible to us than to Western Assyrians.

Btw, like Urmian, Chaldean is also a dialect with a foreign sound -- In this case, Arabic. So it's pretty much not any "better" than Urmian.

Urmian at least has a more authentic Assyrian sound to it, considering that many Assyrians would typically have a dialect similar to Urmian (Iraqi Koine, Jelu and Nochiya dialects are a lot closer to Urmian). And just like Urmian, Chaldean is also a dialect with a completely foreign sound -- In this case, Arabic. So it's pretty much not any "better" than Urmian.

Since I understand the 'Maloula' aramaic, the Chaldean one sounds so close to it for instance, that wikipedia sample had some Iraqi Arabic words (so ignoring that) and just focusing on the Chaldean makes it very similar to the Maloula one.

Thank for the videos. Linda looks pretty in that video though I usually find Juliana much prettier and I prefer her over Linda.

Since I understand the 'Maloula' aramaic, the Chaldean one sounds so close to it for instance, that wikipedia sample had some Iraqi Arabic words (so ignoring that) and just focusing on the Chaldean makes it very similar to the Maloula one.

Thank for the videos. Linda looks pretty in that video though I usually find Juliana much prettier and I prefer her over Linda.

Yes, Chaldean sounds a lot like Maloula and Turoyo (Western Aramaic), even though it's more intelligible to us than to Western Aramaic speakers. They use Th's, guttural H and Eh sounds. You can say that they speak Assyrian in a Western Aramaic accent.

Linda and Juliana are both pretty in their own way. Juliana was very pretty in the 80s and 90s. Linda George got prettier as she aged. Ever since the mid 2000s, Juliana started to look too plastic, unfortunately (cheeks, lips).

To be fair, Urmian has a more authentic Assyrian sound to it, considering that many Assyrians would typically have a dialect similar to Urmian ---- Iraqi Koine, Jelu and Nochiya dialects are a lot closer to Urmian. Tyari is like a "lovechild" of Urmian and Chaldean (as it uses the Th sounds). You can say that Chaldean is a concoction of Western Assyrian (Turoyo) and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, although it still sounds more Eastern. As in, it will be more intelligible to us than to Western Assyrians.

No, Urmian is one of the least "authentic"-sounding dialects. The only reason it's even vaguely considered as a "standard" is because, in the 19th century, Justin Perkins, an American missionary, came over and arbitrarily chose Urmian to be the language in which the Bible was going to be translated for all Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers, even though most of the Neo-Aramaic speakers at the time in Hakkari and the Nineveh Plains spoke dialects that were a lot more conservative. Before then, the modern dialects were almost never used in writing (for centuries, that honour would go to Classical Syriac).

Tyari is not the "lovechild" of anything---it preserves the "th" sounds from 2500+ years ago from the days of Imperial Aramaic, as do the Chaldean, Turoyo, and Classical Syriac dialects. Urmian, Jilu and Nochiya lost those sounds some time within the last few centuries (the dialects are related and probably branched off the same dialect or influenced each other due to proximity).

Btw, like Urmian, Chaldean is also a dialect with a foreign sound -- In this case, Arabic. So it's pretty much not any "better" than Urmian.

It depends on the specific dialect within Chaldean, there is no "one" Chaldean dialect any more than there is "one" Nestorian dialect. The Alqosh dialect, for example, has a lot less Arabic loanwords than, say, the Telsqop dialect.

No, Urmian is one of the least "authentic"-sounding dialects. The only reason it's even vaguely considered as a "standard" is because, in the 19th century, Justin Perkins, an American missionary, came over and arbitrarily chose Urmian to be the language in which the Bible was going to be translated for all Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers, even though most of the Neo-Aramaic speakers at the time in Hakkari and the Nineveh Plains spoke dialects that were a lot more conservative. Before then, the modern dialects were almost never used in writing (for centuries, that honour would go to Classical Syriac).

I know this. All I meant was that Urmian would be a bit "more" authentic than other dialects because most of the Assyrians nowadays sound closer to Urmian than the other dialects (i.e. Iraqi Koine). Sure, traditionally, it isn't an authentic dialect due to its Farsi influence, but so many Eastern Assyrians retain its sound.

Quote

Tyari is not the "lovechild" of anything---it preserves the "th" sounds from 2500+ years ago from the days of Imperial Aramaic, as do the Chaldean, Turoyo, and Classical Syriac dialects. Urmian, Jilu and Nochiya lost those sounds some time within the last few centuries (the dialects are related and probably branched off the same dialect or influenced each other due to proximity).

I'm aware that Tyari isn't a lovechild of anything, hence the quotation marks I made. I merely meant that it has features of Chaldean and Urmian dialects -- NOT that it borrowed these attributes from them. I was trying to explain what dialects soundalike and such.

Quote

It depends on the specific dialect within Chaldean, there is no "one" Chaldean dialect any more than there is "one" Nestorian dialect. The Alqosh dialect, for example, has a lot less Arabic loanwords than, say, the Telsqop dialect.

The differences between Chaldean dialects seem to be minor, but I know that there are some differences, if a bit subtle.

I know this. All I meant was that Urmian would be a bit "more" authentic than other dialects because most of the Assyrians nowadays sound closer to Urmian than the other dialects (i.e. Iraqi Koine). Sure, traditionally, it isn't an authentic dialect due to its Farsi influence, but so many Eastern Assyrians retain its sound.

Are you not counting Chaldean Assyrians and Western Assyrians in "most of the Assyrians nowadays?"

I'm aware that Tyari isn't a lovechild of anything, hence the quotation marks I made. I merely meant that it has features of Chaldean and Urmian dialects -- NOT that it borrowed these attributes from them. I was trying to explain what dialects soundalike and such.

Thank you for clarifying. The wording you chose heavily implied the opposite. In a field where "mother," "daughter," and "sister languages/dialects" are actual used terms, "lovechild" serves to confuse, as children descend from parents are are younger. It made it seem like you're saying the Tyari dialects aren't more original or are a hybrid and the Standard Urmian isn't the one that deviated from the others.

Why don't you say Tyari retains features of the "mother" dialect and the Chaldean and Urmian dialects deviated from that mother dialect? Why aren't Chaldean and Urmian the daughters of Tyari?

(I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way. The real answer is that they are in what's called a "dialect continuum," with Chaldean being on one side of the spectrum of tongues, Urmian on the other, and Tyari in the middle. That's what you meant to say.)

Are you not counting Chaldean Assyrians and Western Assyrians in "most of the Assyrians nowadays?"

Yes. The thing is, many Chaldeans don't consider themselves Assyrians. And Western Assyrians speak a different language, or at least a very distinct dialect. Yes I know, this is debatable; People would argue that they speak the same language (Syriac), but at the end of the day it's not Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. If you know what I mean.

Quote

Thank you for clarifying. The wording you chose heavily implied the opposite. In a field where "mother," "daughter," and "sister languages/dialects" are actual used terms, "lovechild" serves to confuse, as children descend from parents are are younger. It made it seem like you're saying the Tyari dialects aren't more original or are a hybrid and the Standard Urmian isn't the one that deviated from the others.

Yeah, I understand that you would perceive it that way. I do have the habit of speaking in metaphors and the likes. People shouldn't take me very literally. Lol.

Quote

Why don't you say Tyari retains features of the "mother" dialect and the Chaldean and Urmian dialects deviated from that mother dialect? Why aren't Chaldean and Urmian the daughters of Tyari?

(I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way. The real answer is that they are in what's called a "dialect continuum," with Chaldean being on one side of the spectrum of tongues, Urmian on the other, and Tyari in the middle. That's what you meant to say.)

Yep. I read about the Assyrian dialect continuum.

The more eastwards you go in Hakkari the more Urmian you'd sound. And the more western you go, the more Tyari you'd sound. And if you go even further to the southwest you'd begin to sound Chaldean.

Even Chinese languages have a dialect continuum. England too, interestingly - For instance, the dialects in Northern England (i.e. Geordie), which border Scotland, actually sound more like Scottish than English.

Okay, since this is easier to me, I distinguish dialects on how they pronounce words - Do you use "th" instead of "t" (beta = betha)? If so, then you're similar to Tyaris, and that your village is somewhere around there.

Okay, since this is easier to me, I distinguish dialects on how they pronounce words - Do you use "th" instead of "t" (beta = betha)? If so, then you're similar to Tyaris, and that your village is somewhere around there.

I love most Assyrian dialects, but the following have to be my favorite:

1-Jilwaye2-Baznaye3-Ashetnaye

I don't mind our barwar accent too, but Barwar has a lot of villages, and depends on which one. Mine is Tashish, and since I am used to it, I love it when the elders speak it, they have the pure and original accent (it is actually close to a Tyare dialect)

Of course, I also like to listen to the pure Ourmijnaye, Nocheyaye, Qochesnaye, Marboushaney and other similar dialects.

ASHOOR

P.S: if you want to hear a pure Jilwaye accent, watch this video below (the content may not be pleasant to some)

I love most Assyrian dialects, but the following have to be my favorite:

1-Jilwaye2-Baznaye3-Ashetnaye

I don't mind our barwar accent too, but Barwar has a lot of villages, and depends on which one. Mine is Tashish, and since I am used to it, I love it when the elders speak it, they have the pure and original accent (it is actually close to a Tyare dialect)

Of course, I also like to listen to the pure Ourmijnaye, Nocheyaye, Qochesnaye, Marboushaney and other similar dialects.

ASHOOR

P.S: if you want to hear a pure Jilwaye accent, watch this video below (the content may not be pleasant to some)

You just demonstrated clearly why there needs to be a single, standardized dialect...

My dad's a Saranaya and my mum's a Nochieta. They both pronounce it as 'sippa'

Oddly enough, Assyrians seem to be pronounce it fine and may be writing it wrong. The word sippa (finger) is likely derived from the akkadian word sippu (threshold, extremity, end point). It is one of the less common words that has not only likely come from Akkadian but where only the suffixing article has changed.

The only mystery then becomes, why does it have a beet in it? my guess is that it was borrowed into Aramaic with a 'b' sound and spelt that way despite many Aramaic speaking Assyrians living further East retaining the Akkadian influenced 'P' sound. Then over time, the P became more dominant in speech among all Assyrians (for whatever reason) but the B retained its spelling to maintain the written tradition of the word that might have birthed in the West (such as in Edessa itself). -Just a little theory but I really don't know if has another origin or not.

You just demonstrated clearly why there needs to be a single, standardized dialect...

No, I didn't. The usage of a schwa doesn't degrade our language. The "I" in sipateh (finger) and sipateh (lips) has two different phonetics. Nuanced features like this actually make our language more unique.

That single standardized dialect(s) is "Iraqi Koine" and "Urmian". They're going very well. Praising classical Syriac and teaching it to some extent is one thing, but trying so hard to have it become our official language is an unrealistic vision.

Speaking of which, should we go back to Middle English? And how come there aren't any purists out there who be like "teach Middle English to our kids!"...?

No, I didn't. The usage of a schwa doesn't degrade our language. The "I" in sipateh (finger) and sipateh (lips) has two different phonetics. Nuanced features like this actually make our language more unique.

That single standardized dialect(s) is "Iraqi Koine" and "Urmian". They're going very well. Praising classical Syriac and teaching it to some extent is one thing, but trying so hard to have it become our official language is an unrealistic vision.

Speaking of which, should we go back to Middle English? And how come there aren't any purists out there who be like "teach Middle English to our kids!"...?

No english purists because the majority of English speakers can understand each other pretty well while you complain how you can't understand Turoyo...

Case is settled, Modernized form of Classical Syriac as new Standard dialect.

No english purists because the majority of English speakers can understand each other pretty well while you complain how you can't understand Turoyo...

Case is settled, Modernized form of Classical Syriac as new Standard dialect.

Actually, we don't. There are so many strong English dialects that are partially incomprehensible. Americans usually put subtitles and even dub films that have strong regional accents (namely from the UK and Australia). The Scottish accent is very hard to understand for many English speakers - And it's not like they use different words. They just pronounce them differently. Turoyo, on the other hand, mostly has words that we DON'T even use. They have their own set of words. So how the hell should we Easterners be blamed for not finding Turoyo intelligible when they have their own vocabulary? A false equivalent there.

We are speaking a "modernized form" of classical Syriac. Listen to your parents and other Assyrians - That is modern Syriac you're hearing. It just happened to be evolved that way. It cannot be undone. Nonetheless, Turoyo isn't Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. So it's understandable to not find *another* language mutually intelligible, no matter how closely related it is to us. Turoyo is just a very closely related language to ANA (be it a, "sister language"). Perhaps like Turkmen and Turkish, if not more or less closer.

Why is it so hard to accept that Turoyo, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Jewish Aramaic, Western Neo-Aramaic, etc, are all Syriac languages rather than mere "dialects"? You and I both know that they aren't all too mutually intelligible. There is a fine line between a dialect and language.

Actually, we don't. There are so many strong English dialects that are partially incomprehensible. Americans usually put subtitles and even dub films that have strong regional accents (namely from the UK and Australia). The Scottish accent is very hard to understand for many English speakers - And it's not like they use different words. They just pronounce them differently. Turoyo, on the other hand, mostly has words that we DON'T even use. They have their own set of words. So how the hell should we Easterners be blamed for not finding Turoyo intelligible when they have their own vocabulary? A false equivalent there.

We are speaking a "modernized form" of classical Syriac. Listen to your parents and other Assyrians - That is modern Syriac you're hearing. It just happened to be evolved that way. It cannot be undone. Nonetheless, Turoyo isn't Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. So it's understandable to not find *another* language mutually intelligible, no matter how closely related it is to us. Turoyo is just a very closely related language to ANA (be it a, "sister language"). Perhaps like Turkmen and Turkish, if not more or less closer.

Why is it so hard to accept that Turoyo, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Jewish Aramaic, Western Neo-Aramaic, etc, are all Syriac languages rather than mere "dialects"? You and I both know that they aren't all too mutually intelligible. There is a fine line between a dialect and language.

Because you 're not an expert of anything linguistic. I'm not an expert either but I do know the differences between a dialect and language, have access to Syriac materials both old and modern, and I have some knowledge on Semitic languages as whole compared to you...

Plus, you're confusing vocabulary experience for incomprehensible...

Just because an American doesn't know what a "wog" or "fag" is in AUS/UK English doesn't mean languages are automatically incomprehensible to each other...

When my Australian cousin Will came over to the USA, I understood him 100% perfectly other than his Australian-born vocabulary that I had to ask him about and even then, Wiktionary has entries on Australian and UK English vocabulary terms.

Because you 're not an expert of anything linguistic. I'm not an expert either but I do know the differences between a dialect and language, have access to Syriac materials both old and modern, and I have some knowledge on Semitic languages as whole compared to you...

Plus, you're confusing vocabulary experience for incomprehensible...

Just because an American doesn't know what a "wog" or "fag" is in AUS/UK English doesn't mean languages are automatically incomprehensible to each other...

When my Australian cousin Will came over to the USA, I understood him 100% perfectly other than his Australian-born vocabulary that I had to ask him about and even then, Wiktionary has entries on Australian and UK English vocabulary terms.

"Wog" and "fag" are slang words. Everyone knows what a "fag" is. Only Aussies and Brits know of "wog" though. But that's a feeble comparison there. Slang shouldn't be used as an example.

FYI, Turoyo has *real*, non-slang, day to day words that we don't even use (tablitho = mees, tlitho= brata, qanyo = qalama, halakh = jwaja, etc...need I go on?), and yet you see it as a dialect?

Nobody's saying who's an expert on linguistics and who isn't, but we have common sense. To my ears, Turoyo sounds like a different, but closely related, language.

On a side note - If you love Syriac so much, just "preserve" it and leave its name for the classical one, no? I mean, you're the one who thinks that modern Aramaic has "butchered" Syriac. So why call its variants "Syriac", let alone "SYRIAC DIALECTS"? Isn't that a contradiction on your part?

"Wog" and "fag" are slang words. Everyone knows what a "fag" is. Only Aussies and Brits know of "wog" though. But that's a feeble comparison there. Slang shouldn't be used as an example.

FYI, Turoyo has *real*, non-slang, day to day words that we don't even use (tablitho = mees, tlitho= brata, qanyo = qalama, halakh = jwaja, etc...need I go on?), and yet you see it as a dialect?

Nobody's saying who's an expert on linguistics and who isn't, but we have common sense. To my ears, Turoyo sounds like a different, but closely related, language.

On a side note - If you love Syriac so much, just "preserve" it and leave its name for the classical one, no? I mean, you're the one who thinks that modern Aramaic has "butchered" Syriac. So why call its variants "Syriac", let alone "SYRIAC DIALECTS"? Isn't that a contradiction on your part?

You still just proved my answer correctly saying that the major issue here is vocabulary...

The difference between a language and a dialect is how different are the changes in grammar.

Is Turoyo's grammar so different that it should be considered separated from Eastern Syriac dialects all together?

Qanyo is also in Eastern Syriac (qanya)Halakh is as wellTlitho is also in Eastern Syriac, it's pronounced ṭalīṯā the T is ṭeth

Are they now? Every Assyrian I know doesn't use these words.

*We use "talita" for a female who's asleep. We use "niqwa" for her gender.*Every easterner I know says "qalama", never "qanya". *Again, nobody says "halakh" for walking. We say "jwaja" (borrowed word or not, doesn't matter).

Yes, the major problem is vocabulary. But that's the crucial aspect in here - If a language's vocab is over 50-60% inharmonious to ours, it just cannot be part of ours. There is always a red line here.

People using classical Syriac in literature is not a problem. I've told you before that I'm fine with Syriac being taught or showcased. All I'm saying that it will just never be an official, single language in the future. I just don't see this happening. Okay, maybe it can be a church language (in which it is), but not a "common language".

Tell me, is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic "Syriac" to you? If so, why would a skewed, bastardized "ghetto" language like ANA be Syriac, let alone its dialect? That's what I can't fathom here.

*We use "talita" for a female who's asleep. We use "niqwa" for her gender.*Every easterner I know says "qalama", never "qanya". *Again, nobody says "halakh" for walking. We say "jwaja" (borrowed word or not, doesn't matter).

So what if I taught a new generation that Tdalita means young girl? Tdalitha doesn't mean "girl", it means "young girl"

Yes, the major problem is vocabulary. But that's the crucial aspect in here - If a language's vocab is over 50-60% inharmonious to ours, it just cannot be part of ours. There is always a red line here.

Then the problem would be with Assyrian Neo-Aramaic since many words are of foreign origins. My personal objective is to have speakers use native Syriac words. If I achieve that, then there's no "inharmonious"-ness vocabulary with Turoyo...

People using classical Syriac in literature is not a problem. I've told you before that I'm fine with Syriac being taught or showcased. All I'm saying that it will just never be an official, single language in the future. I just don't see this happening. Okay, maybe it can be a church language (in which it is), but not a "common language".

Tell me, is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic "Syriac" to you? If so, why would a skewed, bastardized "ghetto" language like ANA be Syriac, let alone its dialect? That's what I can't fathom here.

after reading what you said, I thought up this question: Did Jews have this same conversation but with Hebrew and all the Hebrew dialects?

Isn't that the beauty of having multiple words with the same or slightly same meaning? It adds more expressivity

Well, I'm not against that. But you know it will be difficult and time-consuming trying to implement a new word. It will take time before it finally "adjusts" into our tongue.

Quote

So what if I taught a new generation that Tdalita means young girl? Tdalitha doesn't mean "girl", it means "young girl"

Again, it's gonna take time to achieve this. Let's first teach them the common tongue or the common saying for every word, rather than the Syriac equivalent. Look, I get your passion, and I told you this before, but other Assyrians wouldn't know what the hell these Syriac words (i.e. "talidtha") mean. So you teach that person "talidtha" and he goes "hey talitha" to an Assyrian girl, how would you expect her to react? You know she would be like "huh?".

Quote

Then the problem would be with Assyrian Neo-Aramaic since many words are of foreign origins. My personal objective is to have speakers use native Syriac words. If I achieve that, then there's no "inharmonious"-ness vocabulary with Turoyo...

There you go. You acknowledge that we are not in harmony with Turoyo. Therefore, we cannot be the "same" language due to this unfortunate circumstance. You can tell that we diverged.

I actually don't mind Kurdish and Farsi loanwords. Arabic ones kinda get to me, due to their annoying pharyngeals, and the fact that they act as "fillers" for words that we don't know of (or forgot). For instance, I hate saying "aadi" for "normal" - There is no Assyrian word for it. If there is a Syriac word for "normal" then I'll totally use it, and adamantly teach it to others. But you're somehow more bothered when people say "neqwa" and "jwaja" - At least we have ACTUAL words for those...Lol

Quote

after reading what you said, I thought up this question: Did Jews have this same conversation but with Hebrew and all the Hebrew dialects?

From what I've read, these are just different pronunciation systems (with more or less different words from arabic/persan/whatever) for Biblical Hebrew and not dialects. Compare it to Classical Syriac (Same language (vocabulary, grammar, etc.) just West & East pronunciation/vocalization).

On the topic, per intelligibility order:Turoyo > Chaldean from Turkey (very close to Turoyo) > whatever eastern dialects mixed with persian/kurdish/arabic > Western neo Aramaic...

Above all dialects: Classical Syriac, would be fun to listen to people using Western vocalization and others answering using Eastern or vice versa.

From what I've read, these are just different pronunciation systems (with more or less different words from arabic/persan/whatever) for Biblical Hebrew and not dialects. Compare it to Classical Syriac (Same language (vocabulary, grammar, etc.) just West & East pronunciation/vocalization).

On the topic, per intelligibility order:Turoyo > Chaldean from Turkey (very close to Turoyo) > whatever eastern dialects mixed with persian/kurdish/arabic > Western neo Aramaic...

Above all dialects: Classical Syriac, would be fun to listen to people using Western vocalization and others answering using Eastern or vice versa.

Chaldean may pronounce some words the same way Turoyo does (i.e. the pharyngeal H), but it's still basically Assyrian Neo-Aramaic.